Gamers Fanon Wiki talk:Archive5
Approval The majority of the admin team ( Burs, Admins, and Rollbacks ) will vote either support or oppose to an idea, and if support wins, the vote will take place as a community vote, if oppose wins, it will not. The admins can and will discuss whether it will help the Wiki or not. Suggestions Example Suggestion Give Tama63 some ice cream --'Tama63' 20:09, March 16, 2012 (UTC) Example 2 Make a rule where Captaingoldvane2 gets to have Step's World Eater Blade Screens Just thought you guys might want to look at these. Have a nice day (: Cher Bear =D (talk) 21:14, August 31, 2012 (UTC) Dealt with both of them with kicks. They stopped after being kicked, and the vote is now on-going. Great one-sided story, Kitty. I get provoked by Leon's racism, and you cut that out, and just get the part where I lose my temper. BRILLIANT JOB! You always talk about how we need to be kind, but then you cut out that? Real good job. --[[User talk:John Breasly|''John Breasly]],'' [[Savvy Designs|''Savvy Designs Member]] 21:21, August 31, 2012 (UTC) Well, you managed to break two rules in the process, and the fault for that is not mine. 1) The no using "ass" to insult 2) Cursing. The others on chat have to obey the same rules that you do, regardless of the situation. Bye bye now dear. Cher Bear =D (talk) 21:26, August 31, 2012 (UTC) That's called trolling. Running around and acting nice to everyone after attacking/provoking them. You're more worthy of a ban than myself. --[[User talk:John Breasly|John Breasly]],'' [[Savvy Designs|''Savvy Designs Member]] 21:37, August 31, 2012 (UTC) Wait, are you talking about yourself or me? (seriously though, just asking). I do genuinely like people and their company... It really does tick me off when someone goes around insulting others and making their days quite unhappy, though. This will be my last post on the subject, as my ankle is starting to behave again so I can be productive. Appreciate the input. Have a nice evening (and I actually mean this). Cher Bear =D (talk) 21:42, August 31, 2012 (UTC) I seriously can't believe that all of this is happening today due to my mistake. I sincerely apologize at the most extreme level. It seems like there's almost groups of users that seem to be on teams against each other (Ex: Jim, Cherie, Bill, vs John, Garland, Mallace, etc ), and it hurts me deeply to see that you are all fighting due to my behavior. I really regret saying those things, and I apologize for it, I really do, ok? 21:52, August 31, 2012 (UTC) Don't blame yourself Gold. I was the admin online and I did not handle this properly. I kicked them both from chat and luckily the sort of cooled off, but yeah... things got bad :/ I feel awful... Also I agree with you on your users against users thing. I didnt want to say it, but I sort of noticed the arising Logan, Cherie and Bill alliance. Don't blame YOURself Jack. I am the one to be blamed here, I stirred up a bloody mess and now it's burning the Wiki in flames and pushing us down on the meter. You did the right thing by kicking them. 22:03, August 31, 2012 (UTC) Nonsense, it was my fault! I shouldn't have been at the eye-doctor! Teeheehee-- 22:04, August 31, 2012 (UTC) Yeah, maybe, but it should not have got that far and afterwards I should have cleaned up better. Par is BLIND O_O :Nah, my vision is just really weird now (O_o). If anything gets close to my eyes it gets blurry, but that never used to happen! CURSE THOSE EYEDROPS! D:-- 22:09, August 31, 2012 (UTC) :Rofl alliance xD That's really flattering, it sounds like we were plotting to do it all along... Would have been epic, but I haven't really spoken with Jim for the past couple weeks or so, and Bill is sorta hit or miss, so I take whatever time I can with him. :My point in all this is not to create some sort of user versus user megafight. I just wish John would apologize to those he has hurt thus far and make an effort to be less hostile... temper or not, he should not have said what he said. A cold world it may be, but our frosty behavior isn't making it any less chilly (and no offense but I'm freezing my ass off). :John: did I mean to provoke you? Hell yes. Was it hypocritical to do so? Yes. Did I enjoy your reaction? Most likely. But that doesn't make what I did morally acceptable, and I apologize for it- honestly. To spell it out: WHAT I DID WAS WRONG AND IMMATURE even though it seemed like a good idea at the time. :I'm not going to be on the wiki as much, and may stop checking altogether sometimes, but I'm as tired of putting up with crap from you as you are with putting up with crap from me. Let's not make each other's lives more difficult, eh? We get enough crap to deal with from other people, and I won't throw poo at you if you don't throw poo at me. I'll swallow my pride even if I see you being mean to people, because it isn't my business, and I have more long-term things to get stressed out over. In return, stop insulting me directly. I'll come through on my side of the deal first if it makes you happy. :No, this is not a ploy to gain sympathy from the admins. If it were I'd have addressed them and not you. I'm just sick of butting heads with you when we both have other, more important things to finish. :Truce? :Cher Bear =D (talk) 05:07, September 1, 2012 (UTC) : Inappropriate Talk. Inappropriate Talk Some users were "misbehaving on chat." I attempted to control some of it, but they wouldn't exactly listen. Hope these are useful. I would say the users most misbehaving were Davy and Albert. 05:19, September 1, 2012 (UTC) Seriously? First of all, you didn't "try to control us". Stop acting like you're some great hero in chat, because you were taking part in it earlier. Second of all, I know you want to be a chat mod, everybody knows, but this is really how you want to get there? Screenshots of users doing absolutely nothing wrong but having a good time? Yeah, we did nothing wrong. We didn't curse; there were no insults or discrimination; and no sexual references (the only thing slightly sexual that was said was the word "sexy", which is allowed). Honestly, and I'm not just saying this because I was involved, I don't see anything worthy of a ban or strike here, and this frankly reached a new low. -- Jeremiah Garland So I was misbehaving for saying "Sexy"? That really is not even worth a strike lol. If you want to see what breaks the rule, scroll up to where I was banned 3 Days, thats what breaks the rule, not "sexy". Many users use sexy and~ I have seen others say things I say up there, not just me. That is all I am going to say. 05:47, September 1, 2012 (UTC) After looking over this, I have come to realize that this isn't needed. I ask that this be disregarded and/or deleted. I really didn't want to get anyone banned; I have nothing against anyone here, I just thought the admins might want to see it and then decide if it was worthy of any "punishment," which I now agree that it's not. I'm sorry if I've overreacted, because I did. 07:10, September 1, 2012 (UTC) Apology accepted, Jack. We should archive this page. 15:37, September 1, 2012 (UTC) Block: Lord Andrew Mallace First, he never even benefits the wiki. Next, all he does is insult anyone to disagrees with him. It's his way or the highway in most cases. Therefore I propose a short-medium block on User:Lord Andrew Mallace. I'm for the time being. While I agree he does insult people, I do not agree that he "never benefits" the wiki. This is not exactly a well set out request. No official reasons or anything. I agree he can be insulting, but I honestly do not see much reason for this. , for now. Um, lol. First of all, who the hell made this, rofl. Too scared to even put their name, I see. Mallace may be assertive at times, but that's the wafflezway. Besides, as I've said before, it's the assertive people that will finish strong, and actually go places in the world, unlike you fruit cocktails who sit back in your little homes going "guyz pls be nice". Step, you're turning into Cherie... No, the world is not perfect; no, it never will be; and no, Mallace does not insult people. At least I've never seen him insult anybody. If you're really going to be neutral on this, that kind of shows you have a bit of a thing against him, because this request is... well, lol, crap. OH and yes, Mallace does contribute to the wiki. He's the grand lord admiral of the Looterz. I wrote a song for this... "''I You Let's get in here Because this is too weird to So I'll your And we can the Arab times" -- Jeremiah Garland <3 Don't bring me into this, especially since you don't know me well enough to judge. Please and thank you, Jer. Anyway, . Cher Bear =D (talk) 22:12, September 8, 2012 (UTC) I don't see any valid reason to ban Mallace. He is just being himself on the wiki. -- 22:31, September 8, 2012 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to , I thought about this and it's basically another one of Slappy's revenge ban request. This is completely uneeded. What did Mallace even do? I don't see any rulebreaks mentioned. I don't think he "never benefits the Wiki". This seems to be a grudge request, not a reasonable request at all. We can't just ban somebody because he "doesn't benefit the Wiki" ( Which is untrue. Mallace is a fun helpful user ), and we aren't going to. I , and seeing the other votes, I believe this request is denied by the entire Bureaucratic Council. 23:12, September 8, 2012 (UTC) This is totally needed! He has done so much for a ban! Reverse that. I really hate when I make one of these requests, everyone gangs up on me and refuses to see the other side of things. Whatever. I really couldn't care less because it will happen later. And Step, I imagined you and I had cleared our grudges. I guess not :/ 02:11, September 9, 2012 (UTC) Cooldown Block Request: Jim Logan Herro. I'm requesting the ban of Jim Logan for the following reasons. *Vandalizing as of late *Seems to be a bit of a hot-head when confronted *Talks about users behind their backs occasionally I'm just requesting like two days. Not much. If it doesn't pass, whatever. Just hope it's a wake-up call to a certain user.... --[[User talk:John Breasly|''John Breasly]],'' [[Savvy Designs|''Savvy Designs Member]] although it doesn't matter, he has vandalized my page 3 times, with what he claims " a valid reason" however it is against my will and I do not condougne it, and as per I am "legally renting" the page from wiki, I request this block be put through so he spots vandalizing. ''Talk Hmm. Though he has reasoning to edit the pages ( Which are basically taunting him ), he should have contacted an administrator first. I'm going to put for now, I see both sides here. 20:25, September 14, 2012 (UTC) I agree with Gold, and was actually going to say the same thing. Jim needs to realize that such a thing as administrators exist on this wiki, and he is not one nor does he represent them. He should have contacted us and we would have gladly tried to resolve the situation. I am thinking of a compromise, where some of the more offensive stuff on those pages gets removed ( the authors are not striked ) and Jim is not punished for his vandalism and vigilante behaviour. If talking behind people's backs is still a proble, he needs to resolve it soon. I think Jim is acting up quite a bit, but he had a right to edit that page, it was mocking him, I agree he talks behind his back a lot though, he always talks about John and how he'll be overthrowing all role-players, but for now I stand neutral. --[[User:Pencil-|''Pencil]] 21:18, September 14, 2012 (UTC) I think Jim is acting up alot. But for the page mocking him.... he had a right to be upset at the person. But his hot head is getting him in alot of trouble with admins and rollbacks........So I remain Neutral for now Actually, per Wikia and this wiki's rules, he had no right to edit the page. He simply edited it because it wasn't praising him. It's vandalizing, no matter how "justified" you want to pretend it is. He can be upset all he wants, but the page wasn't offensive, and he had no right to vandalize. On top of that, he's been mocking me and others for quite some time, and I'm getting quite sick of his "I'm immune" attitude. --[[User talk:John Breasly|John Breasly]],'' [[Savvy Designs|''Savvy Designs Member]] 15:47, September 15, 2012 (UTC) I believe this situation is handled, let's us leave it be. 15:52, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Demotion Request: Lord Matthew Blastshot As of lately, when Blastshot is on chat, he has been a jerk, telling everyone to,"shut up" when they won't listen to them, then slams you with threats if you don't listen. He has been overly-aggressive with an attitude against everyone. 04:46, September 15, 2012 (UTC) , Matthew seemed nice at first, but as of lately, he's shown his true self. He constantly will threaten you and he has made racist remarks to me. He called me a freak for saying I had this girl hitting on me; he was racist to the Irish too, if I say something in foreign he will shout out "Pencil! Perma ban unless translated!". I translate it in 30 seconds, thankfully. Matthew has shown he is an aggressive chat mod, Matthew will be ranting on here if anything. He will defend his position at all costs. But of course, I'm supporting his demotion. I didn't want to write it because I felt it wouldn't end well, just a hunch. But Blake finally stepped up. Thank you Blake. EDIT: Speaking of Irish, he seems to take a dislike for users that are Irish. (Me, Peter Coalvane, David McMartin, so on.) He will act ''very snotty to us. --[[User:Pencil-|''Pencil]] 04:49, September 15, 2012 (UTC) he has been very rude to me telling me to shut up when i go to say a simple comment.. he is very unfit for a chatmod and should be demoted at once! Lord Jason Blademorgan, 04:58, September 15, 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, Matthew, but as a friend, I must this. Your behaviour has become a bit extreme. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/potcolooting/images/8/8c/JarEpicSig.png 05:45, September 15, 2012 (UTC) I must this fully, as I deemed earlier in my blog. His emotional stress is getting to him and affecting his environment in a dangerously negative way. ''Talk As in the words of my fellow comrades, perhaps a demotion would be best for now. I due to an increase in emotional behaviour. -- No sig Garland :Very sorry Matthew, but I must . You have become very hostile in chat. : After reading what other users have stated. I must support this demotion. Sorry Matthew but we don't need a hostile chat mod. -- 12:37, September 15, 2012 (UTC) : Matthew is not material for a rollback. His behavior and abuse of power is to much for an rollback. He should know better : ROFL Pencil. He's not racist against the Irish, what the hell? First off, the translation thing is a RULE. Second, you're just throwing out accusations, he's not racist. It's actually quite funny you think that, it really explains a lot... --[[User talk:John Breasly|''John Breasly]],'' [[Savvy Designs|''Savvy Designs Member]] Hmm. Well, it's hard for me to vote here becasue of a few reasons: 1- Matthew is my friend, and I wouldn't think he would be very aggresive. 2: I really haven't been on chat to see the actions. For some reason, I'm not usually on when he is, and since I really don't know what he did, it's hard for me to make a decision. Yes, I have seen him rather moody, and if that's what you're talking about, then I guess I should just say "oh", but it seems like for this amount of support on his demotion, he would have to have done something a bit more extreme than what I've seen. 3: Now, if I end up supporting this, I don't want anyone claiming "You admins just hate roleplayers!" I could be considered a roleplay due to Indonesia, so, henceforth, I would be hating myself, and not to mention just about every user here, if I hated roleplayers, so, don't want any of that mess. I think before I vote I would like to get on chat and talk with the users who have seen him. I would like some opinions on this, and for now I'm . I will be on chat in a bit, and when I am, please feel free to PM me and shed some light here, I want to know the community decision before voting ( I think I'm going to do this more often, now ) Alot of you are probably angry with me for being neutral all the time, but in most coses, I see both sides, and I usually get PMs from both sides in an argument, and I can understand multiple people's frustrations/opinions. 15:45, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Hmm, for now I am leaning towards Oppose. Matthew is not really abusive, racist or agggressive. He was put on his final warning a little while back, and from what I can see he has not been out of line since. He sticks to the rules of chat and enforces them. What you mistake for racism and aggression is actually joking, sort of like Par. Matthew, often comment wrestles people in chat, because he is being friendly! He insults people and disses his friend to be friendly. I have not seem him act hateful towards any user, and the only people he complains to me about are troublemakers and users who do not behave. I think he likes David, and that was the fun of making David change his avatar. Hes very rude on chat.... I think the real issue here is that for some users, it's hard to tell when Matthew is serious or joking. From being on chat, it seems like some of the things that he has said were mean't as jokes, but taken as insults. I think this request is a bit unneeded, and that perhaps we should give said rollback some time and see how things play out. 16:04, September 15, 2012 (UTC) @Pistol- "I can see he has not been out of line since." Well 1 fact to that is you see him 2 days a week, not that that isn't enough, but their is a wide range (the weekdays) of which you DO NOT observe his behavior, so I belive your statement their is a bit ill-supported. Secondly, if you notice the nature/time of this blog, it was created yesterday evening, so obvioulsy something had to have happened ''recently. As step and Kat also supported, the hostility is most likely being caused by some emotional distress. He has shown us on days such ast last saturday with the avatar incident that he does not yet have the control to maintain himself in an orderly and professional way. I supported his demotion, don't call me bias, but it has proved for the worse. He claims he has many emotinal things going on in his life... and I think it may be getting to him. And Goldvane, whether or not its a joke or being serious, a mod first off should be able to distinguish the two before stating something to the community, and secondly, they both can become offensive and "hostile" on many levels. SO please consider this comment before you go all "BNO" crazy on me, as usual. Sum up: He is not emotionally ready for this volunteer Job. Talk Well, i think i am going to go on the side of Sorry Matthew, i thought you would be a better mod, but you've proved me wrong several times. - Jeffrey B I'm neutral because I wasn't here when said things were done, but I am feeling reluctent to support because of what some have said, however I remain neutral. :) Voxelplox Ƭalk I can see both sides of the story here, but must defend Goldvane's reasoning (as far as some of Blasty's comments being misunderstood). I got a strike a while back because I took something he'd said as literal, when he was actually joking (and dissed him big-time). Since I haven't been on much recently, however, I cannot really formulate an accurate opinion as to who is correct in this, so I will remain . Cher Bear =D (talk) 23:38, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Alright, honesty time. In my eyes, Matthew doesn't deserve a demotion. Yes, he's gone off the deep ends a couple times. Yes, he's let emotion and grudges interfere a couple times with his work. And yes, I myself have held grudges on him, as he has for me and several others. But isn't that just being human? In the long run, he hasn't done anything worthy of a demotion, and I think maybe most of the supports here are due to grudges or bias views. He's screwed up a couple times; there's no denying that. But, as I said, everybody screws up. The important thing is, is that through recent events, he's learned ''that he screwed up, and, knowing him, I can't see him making the same mistake twice. And quite frankly, I don't very much trust "Second Sealord Blake Stewart's" insight on this; Matthew probably said something to Blake that Blake doesn't agree with, and Blake took this as an offense and therefore assumes Matthew is "corrupt" and "has a bad attitude". Haven't we seen this plenty of times before, especially from the newer users such as Blake? Matthew is a good chat mod, when you get to the bare facts, and I don't believe he should be demoted. Sorry for the confusion; I'm chaning my vote to ''-- Garland Meant to do this earlier, but I . Blastshot is not a bad mod, he sticks to the rules, but also knows how to have fun. He jokes around by threatening people and forcing, by some odd deals, bets and so on, to do strange things to his, and others', amusement. This should not be mistaken as hostility. Few people on this wiki know where to draw the line between roleplay, friendships and their responsibilities. Mattthew, among a few others ( Garland notably ), is one of them. I may not always be around during the week, but I keep a close eye on the wiki and if I feel it is needed I will make a plan to get on. Since the recently resolved controversy where Matthew was put on a warning I have seen no reason for his demotion. The fact that two of the people that were opting for his final warning and possible demotion are now opposing clearly tells me that he has been behaving lately. John and Garland are more active and veteraned on this wiki, so I would hold their word ( as users ) to be true, while I trust the word of Goldvane too. I am not saying I think Blake is a liar or too new to have a say, I just suspect he does not understand Matthew's sense of humour or intentions. I beg to differ with Garland on his point that most supports are bias and grudges. Some may be, and I do suspect that, but I believe quite a few are a result of misunderstanding or not enough evidence. I think Kat and Step gave the users the benefit of the doubt, and took Matthew's recent warning into consideration when voting, although I am not their spokesperson. I truly do not think that Kat and Step hate Matthew, as I think they were just acting on what they were told and doing their duties. Changing my vote to , while he has been doing these things, we need to give him a 00:36, September 17, 2012 (UTC)chance to change. If he does not change then we should renew this vote. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, he has changed since we gave him that warning. Changing to because I will give him another chance if he changes. I hope this is an eye-opener to him. -- 17:01, September 16, 2012 (UTC) I'm also changing to , which I was leaning torwards from the beginning. I have talked with Matthew and it seems like he is usually joking when the users do not like him, but I still expect him to change a small bit and just have a bit more happier of a mood while moderating and in chat. Also, when joking ( And, acting like you're being rude, but your not, for example: No more caps or it's a perma ban, you fools! ) it helps to use faces ( :P, :D, xD, etc ) to show you are joking. Same reasons as above.-- 01:21, September 17, 2012 (UTC) Cooldown Ban Request: Victoryous I'll keep this short and sweet, because I do not have much time right now. Recently, there's been a rare time of peace on the wiki; no wars between players and admins, no major roleplay disputes, and no attacks from fruits. Save Victoryous. In the past few days, he has not only been extremely immature on the wiki, but has acted in an aggresive behaviour and continously picks fights with other users. For those of you who are unaware of the roleplay fiasco involving him, a couple weeks ago, the then-monarch of France, Duchess, passed on the French roleplay crown to a named heir. Even still, Victoryous continues to believe that he is indeed the king of France and refuses to take no for an answer. Now, I am not requesting his cooldown because of this absurd claim, but because of what has followed: several unnecessary war roleplay blogs, obnoxious and immature behaviour, and the classic feeling that he is better than everbody else. I believe his horrible ranting and claims that he's "smarter, more mature, more awesome, and better-looking" than other users has gone out of hand. In addition, he claimed one user was racist, when indeed, there was no discrimination against another race or ethnicity subject to the conversation at hand. From the way he's been acting, I wouldn't even be surprised if he's underaged for the Wiki, but I'll make no accusations there. For more proof of his childish and immature behaviour, as well as his obsessed thirst to control a meaningless roleplay nation, reference here. In conclusion, I feel that a slight cooldown ban of a couple days, a week at the most, is necessary to teach this guy not everything in life will be handed to him, and there are consequences for what you say and do. He has, as I've said, acted very immaturely and very brash toward other users. His temper has certainly gone out of control, and I believe a slight cooldown will be best. Thank you for reading and considering, and have a superb day. -- Jeremiah Garland , I've been seeing this user being aggressive and fighting when an Admin came to stop it. I think 3 days at the most for this ban. , although I have avoided all this drama, I can see that there is definitely a good reason for a cooldown. I don't think it should be too long, as he is a fairly new user. I was considering a cooldown block for this user. 3 days sounds good. -- 15:37, September 16, 2012 (UTC) IEOSFOBUABFB. HIM. ETOIAUBFBLIASGVSGE. DERP. HERP. SYSTEM OVERLOAD! Also read that picture. -[[User talk:John Breasly|''John Breasly]],'' [[Savvy Designs|''Savvy Designs Member]] :He has been banned for 5 days since everyone agreed.-- 20:37, September 16, 2012 (UTC) : Hes a very rude person to people in this wiki. Must I say more? Block Request:Jack Goldwrecker. I am hereby requesting the temporary block of User:Jack Goldwrecker. for the following reasons: *Sparking religious arguments *Attacking homosexual members of the community *Attacking non-Catholic memebers of the community *Continuing to "Preach God's Word" after receiving numerous warnings to cease. *Using his religion as an excuse to break rules, when it, in fact, gives him no reason. Now I know Jack will comment saying his religion is making him do this, or something like that, but I will prove otherwise. *Honour thy father and thy mother - This not only refers to your father and mother, but your elders as a total. By refusing to listen to Captaingoldvane2, and other admins, who have told him to cease, he is disrespecting his elders (elders does not refer to people older than yourself, but people who are in a higher position of power.) *Thou shalt not kill - This commandment does not refer to killing only, but harming yourself or another creature in any way, shape, or form (with exceptions such as slaughtering a pig for it's meat, or if another man has attacked you and you kill in defense). By hurting these homosexual and non-Catholic users, he has broken this commandment. That's two of God's commandments broken, so he literally cannot justify his preaching here. In any case, Jack has broken several rules and harassed members, and in my (and many others') opinion, needs a temporary block. --[[User talk:John Breasly|John Breasly]],'' [[Savvy Designs|''Savvy Designs Member]] Jack has been warned multiple times and knew of the consequences of his actions. He needs a temporary block.-- 00:53, September 20, 2012 (UTC) I told him multiple times to stop being openly religious. I thought he had stopped, but I guess not. I'd say a week block. I agree that he should get a short block. It clearly says to not force your religion onto other users in the rules. One week sounds good. -- 00:59, September 20, 2012 (UTC) I am sorry, Jack. But, this has gone on long enough. You continuously disobey our administrators, and no other user likes it. (I don't care, frankly) I know for a FACT there was an atheist, Jew, and whatever the Hell in CHAT while this was going on. How do you think THEY FEEL? Also, GibbsGirl1111 has been disrespecting the Homosexual Community (Population:Bator). I believe she requires a strike, also, because I wouldn't even call anyone a "fag". You have annoyed the most of users on the Wiki, and in chat. I'm sorry, but I have to . Whilst I respect Jack and his religion, I agree this has gone too far. He failed to halt the religous topics far after I warned him and told him to stop. ( BLAST these edit conflicts ) 01:04, September 20, 2012 (UTC) I agree with John, I have seen him preaching in chat multiple times, it's unnecessary and the wiki isn't about damn religion (Sorry god). Sharple Talk Page 01:10, September 20, 2012 (UTC) I apologise, Jack, but I must this. He has been forcing it onto everybody and many users are sick of it. He agreed to stop but really has not done so. In addition, on one of his blogs he said Protestants “scare him,“ acting as if they were lower than Catholics (not capitalising ‘Protestants‘ and then capitalising all of ‘Holy Roman Catholic‘) and as if they were some sort of disgusting pagans. I myself took slight offence to this, being Protestant . . . 01:23, September 20, 2012 (UTC) As to what Jarod Pillagebane said. --[[User:Pencil-|Pencil]] 01:33, September 20, 2012 (UTC) Are you serious? Jack is ''still ''at this? Wow. If only he knew how ignorant ''and ''arrogant he is because of this. He tries to preach his own religion, which, apparently he knows nothing about; as John said, he's broken two commandments, and every time I engage in conversation with him on the matter, he always ends up failing to have a reasonable comeback to my questions. A week break will do him good, let him learn that this needs to stop, and he is not on any "holy, saintly mission" as he believes himself to be. Word to the wise: if you're going to preach an idea or religion to someone, A) make sure you thoroughly understand it, and don't simply go by the knowledge others have told you, B) when people want you to shut the hell up, then ''shut the hell up. ''C) Realise that Christianity, while the most dominant religion in the world, does not grant you special rights to ignore other's fragile beliefs and try to impose your own beliefs on them, which is indeed, as John said, illegal for a Christian to do. I wasn't even involved in this, but I'm still extremely offended that Jack has kept this up. Jack, seriously man... Obviously your holy mission isn't working out. If you're going to play priest, don't do it on the wiki; obviously people hate it. Anyways... I realise this vote is over, but I still :P -- ''Jeremiah Garland Jack Goldwrecker has been blocked for 1 week since all of the available admins agreed. -- 04:15, September 20, 2012 (UTC)